Article Tools

More than two years after the Jesusita Fire wreaked destruction in the hills of Santa Barbara, a group of homeowners and the California Department of Forestry have filed two separate lawsuits seeking reimbursement for property damage and suppression costs caused by the fire.

The Jesusita Fire — which investigators say was accidentally started on the morning of May 5, 2009, by two volunteer trail workers who were using a weed trimming tool to clear brush on the Jesusita Trail — burned over 8,700 acres above San Roque Road and Ontare Road before being contained in a firefighting effort that cost the county $17 million. In the two weeks that the fired burned, 85 homes were destroyed and 15 homes were damaged.

On behalf of 70 individuals whose homes were affected by the fire, Los Angeles-based attorney Brian Heffernan filed a lawsuit last month against Stihl tool company — which manufactured the FS 110 brush cutter that allegedly sparked the fire — seeking “fair” reimbursement of damage caused to his clients’ real estate and property.

According to Heffernan, the company did not warn users that a three-point metal blade attachment on the tool — which investigators say struck a rock and sparked the Jesusita Fire — posed a “hidden danger.”

“If you do exactly what this company tells you to do … you can cause a fire,” Heffernan said. “That’s what happened in Santa Barbara.”

Although no monetary figure for damages has been set, Heffernan said he expects to go forward with a trial. Stihl — which is approaching the end of a 30-day period to settle the litigation out of court — issued this statement to The Independent: “STIHL Inc. is reviewing the complaint recently filed in Santa Barbara, Calif. regarding a 2009 wildfire and at this time has no comment.”

Meanwhile, the two trail workers who wielded the Stihl tool — Dana Larsen and Craig Ilenstine — are facing litigation of their own. The California Department of Forestry filed a civil complaint against the two men in May seeking more than $35 million in damages accrued in fighting and investigating the fire. According to the complaint, Larsen and Ilenstine “breached their duties through their acts, omissions, and/or carelessness in failing to avoid the possibility of fire, to take fire-preventative measures, or to extinguish a fire.”

In the complaint filed against Stihl by the homeowners, Heffernan defended Larsen and Ilenstine, arguing that they were not responsible for the damage that their brush cutter may have caused.

Larsen and Ilenstine “had/have tremendous respect for the Jesusita and Santa Barbara environment,” Heffernan wrote. “They had taken fire prevention precautions while clearing brush and had gone out of their way to avoid setting the brushcutters anywhere near combustible sources such as grass or brush.”

Attorney Mack Staton — who is defending Ilenstine — went even further, saying that the two men may not have even caused the blaze.

Larsen and Ilenstine “aren’t the two guys who did it,” Staton said. “They simply were honest enough to call in and say they were clearing up there.” At the time, Larsen and Ilenstine told investigators that they left the trail area around 11:30 a.m., nearly two hours before the blaze broke out and spread in the afternoon winds.

The Department of Forestry’s case will come to court for the first time in a conference on September 6.

Last year, Larsen and Ilenstine were sentenced to 250 hours of community service after pleading no contest to a charge of trimming without proper fire suppression equipment. They dodged a more serious criminal charge of failing to obtain a “hot work” permit when the court ruled that the requirement for a power-tool permit did not apply to brush clearing.

Comments

Oh for crying out loud! The workers need to be told that metal on stone can cause sparks? Get real. Sue the workers, maybe, but the tool manufacturer? Reminds me of a lawsuit by people who used a rotary lawnmower as a hedge trimmer, were injured, then sued the lawnmower maker for not labelling the lawnmore as not intended for hedge trimming (those guys won a Darwin award)! Heck, it wasn't intended for brain surgery either, and it wasn't labelled for that!

The edges of our communities that border the dry wild areas are simply very, very dangerous. Fire danger comes with the territory.

The lion's portion of the responsibility rests with those who choose to live in the dangerous fire zone.

Good people lost a lot in the various fires between 2007 and 2010. I don't want to bash them. But to search for the speck in the eye of these brush clearing guys and the tool manufacturer while ignoring the plank in the eyes of the residents of a very dangerous location seems wrong to me.

Unbelievable! Sue the company that made the tool! Really? I think we need to start labeling people, with a stupid sticker on their forehead! So I am not supposed to carve a turkey with my cain saw, I was just wondering because it says nothing in the manual and there is no label on the thing...

The problem with all the 5 fires is people that come from the Cities and exercise NO common sense what so ever.

We own land in SLO County, each season after the rains the weeds must be mowed, by tractor, and some weed wacker hand work. The rule of thumb is STOP by 10:00 AM. The nighttime moistness is gone by 10:00 AM. Also we do not use steel blades on the weed wackers.

Dan Vac is right stupid people build in stupid places and usually are the ones that build in areas that should never be built in like mudslide areas, because they love the view and have the big dollars. They should not be allowed to sue.

Next if they were gone two hours before the flames started, how are they so sure they started the fire. In dry grasses it starts fast unlike lighting struck trees, so either they left during the fire which means leaving later than it says in the article or they were not the ones who started it. The suit should just be dropped and I can almost bet these suits are pressure from the individuals insurance companies to make up for lost dollars they had to pay on their policies.

You guys make me laugh. "The lion's portion of the responsibility rests with those who choose to live in the dangerous fire zone." Are you serious?

Admittedly, I might feel less sympathy for those living in a "dangerous fire zone" (arguably, all of Santa Barbara is a dangerous fire zone) if the fire were to have occurred via natural causes (e.g. lightning strike). But when two guys decide on a hot spring day to take power tools to clear combustible brush in hills covered with it, the "lion's share" of the responsibility lies with people who chose to make their homes there? Sounds pretty stupid when you put it all together, doesn't it.

How does this sound: a woman decides to go for a walk in an unfamiliar neighborhood after dark and is attacked and raped. By your logic, she should be the responsible for her because she made the poor decision to go out for a walk (or build a house on a hillside. your pick.) So do we place blame on the victim who may have been foolish, or the person who perpetrates the actual crime.

It's really easy to point the finger when the hole in the ground isn't yours.

Someone is trying to hand me a subpoena because of a youtube video I uploaded that shows the Jesusita Fire from State and Alamar about 20-30 minutes in. (I have since marked the video private, so don't bother looking for it) Couldn't they have just made a phone call to me and asked about the validity of the video and whether or not I'd be interested in allowing them to use it as evidence? Judging from this article it sounds like the attorneys for Stihl are still at it, as I recall in the description of said video I included the time of day and my estimation of when the fire started. What these amateurs don't realize or don't want to admit is that I was making an ESTIMATE. I'm not a professional news-gatherer. So please Stihl, leave me alone. Thank you kindly. And remember, illegal subpoenas or subpoenas that infringe on basic civil rights and within the paradigm of the Freedom of Information Act will be laughed out of court and can offer the subpoenaed party a realistic pursuit for punitive damages.

Got a phone call today from 'Sheldon' representing STIHL. At this point they're guilty of stalking and harassing. He said they downloaded my youtube video and needed me to testify that it is my video. When I started to ask probing questions regarding their bully tactics he stuttered and frankly, sounded like a total amateur. Stupid monkeys.